Is it already a civil war?

Post Reply New Topic

Republicans gain nothing from retrocession, so by definition it can't be a power grab. Geographically, DC is a city, and we don't do city states; if we did, the GOP would split off every urban metropolis as a separate state and there wouldn't be any blue states anymore, just blue cities, and Democrats would never again have a majority, or depending on how the electoral votes were assigned, a president either. Sound good to you?

DC isn't a city. It's a District.

"Washington, DC, isn't a state; it's a district. DC stands for District of Columbia. ... Congress established the federal district in 1790 to serve as the nation's capital, from land belonging to the states of Maryland and Virginia."

It's been a separate entity for 231 years. Why shouldn't it remain it's own territory vs. being forced to combine with one state or the other?

Why would the GOP want to get rid of democratic governance? It's the Democrat presidential administrations that clean up the reckless spending of every "financially conservative," president. The GOP's existence is dependent on the Democrat party doing the real work every cycle.

That's pure semantics, in all aspects but federal classification it's a city.



The residents there have been complaining that they don't have political representation, they even put it on their official issued license plates. Retrocession wouldn't actually combine the territory with another state, it would allow the citizens to vote and be counted with that state, granting them the representation they claim to be lacking. I'm not even sure if it's constitutional to break DC out as a state given it's special status, which just makes the lack of interest in retrocession more glaring, as it really is about those two guaranteed Democrat senate seats.



Well that's one way to move the goalposts. Do I really need to explain why the GOP would jump at the opportunity to engineer in a massive electoral advantage? It's the same reason the Democrats are trying to make DC and Puerto Rico states.

Federal classification is the only one that matters.

Why should they be represented by others vs. themselves? Why is is guaranteed Democratic seats? Surely republicans can fairly run a better candidate with their superior platform and win an election via majority votes just the same as a a democrat candidate could. That's how elections work.

Mmmhmm, democrats engineering electoral advantages.. Have you not noticed the voter suppression efforts being made by republicans across the country right now?

So we should respect the founder's wishes that DC remain a special district and not a state?



Under retrocession, they would represent themselves, the only thing that's different is that two new senators wouldn't be created, which, again, is the entire point here.

As to the second part, would you be making the same argument if the GOP attempted to split Wyoming into 4 states with 6 new senators? What's stopping the Democrats from winning elections in rural areas? They have this great platform, it's just democracy after all...



Do you see me defending what the GOP is doing? Maybe you should stick to things I actually say rather than trying to put words in my mouth, many people consider that dishonest.

Spot on. That is why a slide into anarchy is more likely then civil war.